For nearly a decade, the state\u2019s Legislative Research Council (LRC) has produced prison-jail cost estimates for bills that would impact the inmate population.<\/p>\n
This session, lawmakers will be asked to repeal the law that requires them.<\/p>\n
At least one of the law\u2019s initial backers says that\u2019s a bad idea for taxpayers.<\/p>\n
House Bill 1003<\/a>, the third bill on the House of Representatives docket for the 2023 session, was filed on behalf of the Legislature\u2019s Executive Board. The bill includes an emergency clause, which means it would take effect immediately, rather than on the typical post-session enactment date of July 1.\u00a0<\/p>\n The bill comes on the heels of a report by the LRC that says it lacks the data sources and time it needs to produce reliable cost estimates, and that some of its previous estimates have proven wildly inaccurate.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cYou never get any good information out of them. If you\u2019re not getting anything out of them and it\u2019s taking staff time, it just slows up the work,\u201d said House Speaker Hugh Bartels, R-Watertown, the prime sponsor of House Bill 1003. \u201cAnd it creates a ton of work for the LRC.\u201d<\/p>\n\n The report says the South Dakota framework for producing the estimates makes it difficult to produce them, but it does not conclude that repeal is the answer.<\/p>\n The state could take cues from the 19 other states that require cost estimates to improve the numbers, according to Jim Seward of the Council on Criminal Justice, who was an adviser to former Gov. Dennis Daugaard.<\/p>\n\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t seem wise to me, and it doesn\u2019t seem evidence-based or data-driven to say \u2018this is too hard, let\u2019s get rid of it,\u2019\u201d Seward said. \u201cMany other states seem to be doing it, and according to the LRC, they might have a better process.\u201d<\/p>\n The cost estimate mandate was part of 2013\u2019s Senate Bill 70, a massive criminal justice reform package meant to reduce or adjust penalties for nonviolent crimes and refocus the system on rehabilitation and community supervision. Daugaard signed the bill that year; the first of the 251 estimates produced since then appeared the following year.<\/p>\n\n The requirement has been adjusted since then. Among other tweaks, lawmakers voted to forgo cost estimates in misdemeanor cases.<\/p>\n The LRC\u2019s October report\u00a0<\/a>on the estimates includes a rundown of how many had been produced each year and survey results from lawmakers on how the estimates impacted their decision-making. Most lawmakers reported reading the cost estimates and taking them into consideration, but relatively few reported casting a vote for or against a bill based on them.<\/p>\n Some lawmakers apparently bristle at the idea of considering prison and jail costs without some kind of certainty about the numbers.<\/p>\n More:<\/strong>South Dakota Chief Justice Steven Jensen calls for statewide public defender system<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe accuracy of these estimates is very difficult to achieve,\u201d one unnamed lawmaker told the LRC. \u201cThere are just way too many variables. It\u2019s easy to dismiss new proposed punishments when we always are concerned about putting a price on it.\u201d<\/p>\n The report also includes a summary of the LRC\u2019s available data sources, its time constraints during session and an explanation of the differences between South Dakota\u2019s protocols and those used in the 19 other states that require cost estimates for criminal justice proposals.\u00a0<\/p>\n In some states, for example, the department of corrections is responsible for tallying possible costs. In South Dakota, the job falls on the shoulders of the LRC, an agency whose analysts help lawmakers craft bills and answer research questions throughout the session and the year.<\/p>\n The LRC faces significant hurdles in producing cost estimates. South Dakota has no centralized database of criminal cases, convictions, jail sentences or prison sentences. That means the LRC\u2019s \u201crapid response team\u201d is forced to reach out to multiple agencies for data on existing charges before it can extrapolate possible costs of new penalties for existing crimes.\u00a0<\/p>\n For new crimes, there\u2019s even less data to work with. One bill noted in the report would have enhanced penalties for drug dealers based on convictions in other states.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile there had been almost 1,000 convictions under the relevant statute \u2026 no database of information on their criminal backgrounds, including out-of-state convictions, was available in South Dakota,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n Of the 251 cost estimates that have been prepared since 2014, just 71 suggested that a bill would have a budgetary impact on prisons and jails. The report includes case studies on five that were ultimately passed and signed into law. Three found an impact, but none materialized after the laws took effect. The remaining two over- and underestimated the cost of the new laws to which they were attached.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n The findings might lead lawmakers to conclude that the estimates were inadequate, LRC author Joey Knofczynski wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cThe varying results seen can just as simply be attributed to the difficulty of accurately predicting human behavior, particularly criminal behavior, using limited data,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n Seward was among those who helped craft the 2013 bill that placed the cost estimates on the books. Also on the team were Dusty Johnson, now a U.S. representative, who was chief of staff to Daugaard at the time; and Tony Venhuizen, a newly elected state representative from Sioux Falls who recently stepped down from the Board of Regents.<\/p>\n The group built SB 70 based on a series of intensive work group sessions with members of all three branches of state government, who dove into the state\u2019s criminal justice data with the help of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew\u2019s analysis of evidence-based practices fed into\u00a0a lengthy report<\/a>\u00a0on the potential budgetary and public safety consequences if South Dakota continued to incarcerate nonviolent offenders at higher levels than surrounding states.<\/p>\n Corrections costs had ballooned to $100 million by 2011, up from $26 million in 1991. Yet South Dakota\u2019s crime rates weren\u2019t much better than states that spent less.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cSouth Dakota wasn\u2019t more safe than North Dakota, even though we had more people in prison,\u201d Seward said.\u00a0<\/p>\n The cost estimate provision was just one piece of the bill, which had the backing of every branch of government and marked one of Daugaard\u2019s most significant legislative victories.<\/p>\n\n The overarching goal of the bill was to tamp down costs while preserving public safety. But\u00a0while drug crimes and some other crimes<\/a>\u00a0have dropped in recent years, corrections costs have continued to grow.<\/p>\n Gov. Kristi Noem\u2019s proposed corrections budget for fiscal year 2024, not accounting for proposals to build a new women\u2019s prison and budgeting for a new state penitentiary, stands at $125 million \u2013 $10 million higher than the previous year.<\/p>\n Seward sees cost estimates as an important part of the legislative process. A study group of public safety stakeholders could use the LRC report as the basis for improving the estimates and bringing the protocols for producing them closer to those used in other states, Seward suggested.<\/p>\n Given that lawmakers have already altered the cost estimate law more than once and that lawmakers themselves reported reading and considering the numbers, Seward sees a fix as more useful than a \u201cknee-jerk\u201d repeal.<\/p>\n \u201cIf conservatives don\u2019t want to think about cost, we probably need to have a more foundational discussion,\u201d Seward said. \u201cI think all legislators owe it to their constituents and to the state to take a careful look at corrections costs. They\u2019re a huge part of the state budget.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, who serves as Senate president pro tempore and chairs the Executive Board, is the prime sponsor of HB 1003 in that chamber.\u00a0<\/p>\n Revising the cost estimate requirement or shifting responsibility to another agency wouldn\u2019t make the estimates worthwhile, Schoenbeck argued, because lawmakers need answers more quickly than any research agency can produce defensible numbers.<\/p>\n\n It takes several days to produce the estimates for bills or amendments, and all bills need their cost estimates by \u201ccrossover day\u201d on Feb. 22, the last day for legislation to pass its house of origin.<\/p>\n More:<\/strong>Juvenile justice reform group reports success, in spite of moves to get tougher on kids<\/a><\/p>\n Those time constraints limit the value of a prison-jail impact statement, Schoenbeck said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe can tell that there is no way during a 36 or 37 day legislative session, where you need the answer in 48 hours, that you can accurately predict how many people might be incarcerated,\u201d Schoenbeck said. \u201cIt\u2019s not physically possible during the session to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n The emergency clause on the bill means that if passed, lawmakers will be able to move through the session without pausing to consider the potential cost of crime-related proposals. That could be meaningful for incoming Sen. Brent Hoffman, R-Sioux Falls, who\u00a0plans to submit a \u201ctruth in sentencing\u201d bill<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 which Schoenbeck said he supports \u2013 that would require inmates to serve 85% of their sentences for violent crimes and 100% of their sentences for murder or manslaughter. Currently, most inmates are parole eligible after serving around a third of their sentences but can be forced to serve longer terms before a chance at parole if they commit violent crimes or have significant criminal histories.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hoffman\u2019s bill would only apply to newly sentenced defendants. Schoenbeck and Hoffman both acknowledged that judges are likely to adjust their initial sentences downward in light of the new scheme if the bill passes, but there could still be an impact on prison costs.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n But both lawmakers said a cost estimate would be more distracting than instructive for bills like Hoffman\u2019s. The proposal is in draft form, but \u201cit\u2019s written to address the greatest concerns of law enforcement and our citizens,\u201d Hoffman said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cCitizens simply don\u2019t want violent offenders released early only to commit additional violent crimes, as we\u2019ve too often seen in the media,\u201d he said. \u201cThere must be serious consequences for serious crimes, and we\u2019re working on it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.gannett-cdn.com\/presto\/2022\/05\/09\/PSIF\/cfb75214-08e4-4ea6-bf58-7cf8579772f6-DSC_0020_10.JPG?width=660&height=440&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp\")
<\/figure>\nCost calculation part of reform package<\/h2>\n
Data limitations exist in South Dakota<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.gannett-cdn.com\/presto\/2021\/10\/29\/PSIF\/3d4f97d1-3802-40a7-8d2c-7daf1267b5bf-Prison_001.JPG?width=660&height=448&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp\")
<\/figure>\nDaugaard adviser: Pausing to consider costs worthwhile<\/h2>\n
Lawmakers: estimates slow legislative process<\/h2>\n